Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Notes for 12Feb tools call

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 12 February 2019 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FE51200ED for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:54:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vm7OZJ7RUHyr for <tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E4C1200B3 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.39.7]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x1CEsS7Y022368 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 08:54:29 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1549983270; bh=WwQC4vo/vZfFOmps3tmRjsRIr35aFPt2Qg+Zfv8hM6U=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=JSKHaTDhBFLfjOtBa0zVb7/ebndEpBm9kFzyVIzopEVnGXGntM9v5gKxMRlfMILP5 8hXi3pYfAccNAHbcnfl+3wL+PeSI+lE+HI+Q4HaGvXGy4AIWUjq6bzvljdXzghX+cE 6ZIjGVZF+PZ8d/nzK0hE8mZTJDwtPJeXjW06NfFw=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.39.7] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
References: <6f07a810-b829-9f8c-32be-edc0db92a016@nostrum.com> <C17E5768-DC06-4628-9FA7-7FB86124E863@cooperw.in>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <cf4f9486-5a0d-6172-34ce-2d3af23ba63d@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 08:54:28 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C17E5768-DC06-4628-9FA7-7FB86124E863@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------85175D21FDF54D45242D86DB"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/2XHb0TkTyqUsIayTOxLwODmHiyE>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Notes for 12Feb tools call
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-development/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-development@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:54:39 -0000

Attached.

The report you mention is still in the text. The last I remember on the 
discussion of it was an outstanding question to Alexa.

RjS

On 2/12/19 8:09 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
>> On Feb 8, 2019, at 11:51 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>
>> # RFPs #
>>
>> ## Open / Out for Bid ##
>>
>> The yangcatalog RFP is currently out for bid. Responses are due today (8Feb).
>>
>> ## In Development ##
>>
>> The meeting application improvement SoW is essentially ready to issue.
> Could you circulate the latest version? I had a question about the report generated for the IESG and I don’t think a final answer made it to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>> I have text from Ekr to work into the RPC security code review SoW. The RPC has asked that we hold off issuing that RFP until some changes related to the new format are better integrated into their repository so that the review focuses more on the code that will actually be used.
>>
>> The Inline-Errata SoW is still under review and has several unresolved comments. The lastest version is at <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T-6eBrNPC7aIxOTChdIZE7fecbxUJ7kq-F6RhyCNUGI/edit>. One of the major observations in the comments is that this project is focusing on the existing (old-format) publication format, and is not targetting or taking advantage of the new format in any way. That's intentional. We need to have some run-time experience with the new format before we can sensibly ask a contractor to work on inlining errata into it. We plan to learn from this project, and apply what we learn into the new format with a future project.
>>
>> The next SoW to be developed is for IANA expert review tracking.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development